I found this on Lili’s blog, and in this entry, I showcase to the world just how sophomoric my college paper writing skills are. Funny: when I wrote this shit years ago, I thought I was brilliant and had the makings of an ambassador ambassadress (which, if you still don’t know, is an ambassador’s wife. Idiot). Looking/reading back, I cringe a little at how childish I sound…ed. Hindsight is 20/20, they say. And the sad thing is, that’s as good as a writer I can get.

But first, what I found at Lili’s blog, care of Careercruising.com— you answer a crapload of questions and based on your answers, the website gives you a list of your top 40 compatible career choices. I find it amusing that ‘marriage and family therapist’ is part of my results. And GARDENER. The closest career choice to what I actually took up in college (International Studies, majoring in International Politics. With some units in Development Studies because I was fickle like that) is ‘politician’, which comes in at #37. I must point out that I never aspired to be a politician (perhaps a politician’s wife, yes. Hell, ANYONE’S WIFE, for that matter, would do).

It’s a long list so I’ll just post the top 10. This is why, five years later, I am still kicking myself H.A.R.D. in the ass for not taking up Communication Arts:

1. Director of Photography
2. Website Designer
3. Desktop Publisher
4. Director
5. Coach
6. Artist
7. Special Effects Technician
8. Multimedia Developer
9. Casting Director
10. Animator

Bah.

Out of boredom, I searched my main Gmail account for some of my old college reflection/reaction papers (actual papers weren’t submitted to professors via email and I didn’t pick up the habit of backing up my stuff via the intarwebs until today. Sad, because I remember writing kickass papers on Post-Cold War International Security, the Rwanda Genocide, and New Constitutionalism. Of course, I thought them kickass back then and I bet that if I manage to unearth and re-read said papers [which are saved in my ancient Toshiba], I’m most likely to end up disowning myself).

Excerpts from two of the funnies (aka Papers I Wrote) I found:

On Making Jose Rizal Obsolete, greatly inspired by the teachings of Phil Dy, resident Rizal fanboy:

[...]

It has been pointed out that the only instance when Rizal and his ideas can be deemed as obsolete is when his works, principles and ideas no longer ring true for today. But if one were to scratch at the surface and survey how today’s Filipinos think and act, a century’s worth of changes in values and socialization separate us from Rizal. Of course, this is not enough basis to make him obsolete. If time and change brought about through the course of time is what makes Rizal superannuated, then we commit the atrocity of portraying our national hero as a mere trend.

The significant changes and gaps between Rizal and the present cannot be denied, though. It is important, in re-assessing Rizal, the question: what was Rizal fighting against? The answers are simple: Spanish rule, the friars, inequalities and disparities between the locals and the foreigners and even among the locals et cetera et cetera. In other words, Rizal was battling colonialism.

Most people would like to think that colonialism or imperialism is a thing of the past, when defining or setting boundaries and expanding one’s territory was of utmost importance. We live in an age of de-territorialization and re-territorialization, an acephalous world system where power is dispersed and the lack of a central authority manifests itself in the form of unregulated cultural and economic flows. Colonialism took its exit a long time ago and was replaced with something more subtle—neo-colonialism.

[...]

The idea of colonialism is a much more sophisticated endeavor now. It isn’t as brutal or overtly evil, nor are there really colonies in the traditional sense. The new idea of a colony isn’t in controlling the actual resources of a nation, not primarily, at the least. Colonialism or neo-colonialism’s new primary goal is to control the people of a nation covertly—people being conquered without their knowing it. Instead of grabbing spice and gold, the new colonists are after much more valuable resources—the hearts and minds of people. The end results and reasons are still the same, though, which are the control of economies and the expansion of capitalism. The new colonialists just carry it out in a “gentler” and “easier” way, by imposing their culture on to other people or nations, creating subjectivities that in turn produce needs, social relations, bodies and minds that are designed or patterned according to their liking. They go about this by packaging them as “civil liberties” or as “democracy”, giving the enemy a rather friendly face.

Superannuated? Acephalous?? The hearts and minds of people??? What a LOLit Solis! But hey, at least I seemed like I had a clue what the hell I was doing and studying.

On Trade Liberalization and whether or not it was/is favorable for the Philippines:

[...]

What is trade liberalization, basically? It can be said to be the result of a strong sentiment against economic protectionism and high tariffs that developed after World War II. To enable free trade, new organizations (such as the WTO) were created, which in turn set forth a code of conduct in global trade. In a nutshell, trade liberalization and its regulatory devices aim to break down state barriers, reduce tariffs, and allow the free flow of capital.

Trade liberalization has its benefits (it is important to ask who it benefits, of course)—policies that open an economy to foreign investment and trade are needed for sustained economic growth, and is essential in enabling many developing countries to develop competitive advantages in the manufacture of certain products. Free trade also supposedly benefits the poor, according to the IMF, as it apparently increases their incomes.

But I believe that the costs outweigh the benefits. Trade liberalization has been one of the more prominent features of globalization—thus, it is not merely an economic process, but also a political one. Globalization can be defined as a political project that aims to institutionalize the free market via reconstituting the state in a global world scale. In layman’s terms, this means that the state becomes subordinate to a civil society made up of capitalists. It is not enough to merely look at the economic aspect of things if we were to decide whether or not trade liberalization has been favorable for the Philippines.

I view trade liberalization as a bane to the Philippines because it neglects the human aspect of development—in opening markets to free trade, not only has governance been marketized, but certain development interests have also been compromised. In this process, the state has been reconfigured and restructured to function as companies. The state is supposed to look after the welfare and of people’s interests and needs, but instead, it facilitates businesses to look after our welfare (i.e. insurance). The state is supposed to encourage people’s participation, but instead, it suppresses or represses sectors of society. The state is meant to protect people from market backlash such as HR violations, unfollowed labor codes, and environmental destruction brought about by foreign companies. Instead, the government is protecting the market from people’s backlash by telling us not to scare away needed foreign investors, and through the E-VAT. The state—in the name of capital, free trade, open markets, and trade liberalization—has failed to recognize certain non-negotiables imperative to human development.

[...]

And then I go on to prattle about “grave disparities” that “exist within a county and between countries”, like I really knew what I was talking/writing about and not merely pulling stuff out of my ass. Did I actually use HR to refer to Human Rights? Christ.

But to be truthful, a huge part of me wishes I were still in college. Sure, I was drunk more than half the time, but there was something cerebral about those years.

What a big bore, this Helga person is. Nuninuninu.